Molyneux On Curiosity, GODUS, And Forgotten Promises

By Nathan Grayson on May 29th, 2013 at 3:00 pm.

Most cubes contain air, sugar, or tiny men named Rubik. Not Peter Molyneux’s, though. Instead, Molyneux himself emerged from the cuboid cocoon with promises of virtual immortality. Bryan Henderson from Edinburgh, Scotland will soon be godding at an eons-old level even though he’s just 18. For some, though, that prize rang hollow. “All that tapping,” many cried, “for the sole purpose of advertising 22Cans’ next game?” And what would’ve happened if GODUS‘ Kickstarter didn’t succeed in the first place? Would the prize have been something else entirely? Also, what does cell phone cube tapping have to do with a primarily PC god game at all, and why weren’t we able to at least participate in the tapping on PC? Molyneux initially promised it, after all. There are, in other words, some things to answer for. I got in touch with Molyneux to ask about all the rather questionable changes of plan, and also how all the “god of gods” stuff will affect GODUS for everyone else. Here’s the first part of our chat.

RPS: So Curiosity ended, and it contained virtual godhood. Was that the plan for Curiosity from day one? No switcheroos when Godus’ Kickstarter succeeded?

Molyneux: Yeah. To be honest, this idea came years ago. Just after I finished Fable II, I think it was. I’m a crazy gamer. I play all sorts of games and I’ve played them for an awfully long time. I was looking at what was happening to god games. They were being reinterpreted by some Facebook games, like some of the Zynga games, and by some RTS-like games. And I thought, well, wouldn’t it be amazing one day to have the opportunity to redefine or reinvent what god games are? When I started thinking through that, I thought, if we really are going to reinvent something like this, then we should use some of the technology that’s being used in the games industry, connecting people together. Whole worlds connected together.

The center of the cube came way before the cube.

That led me to the thought that, well, all sorts of god systems, all religious systems, have a god of gods. There’s a Zeus or an Odin. Some hugely powerful figure at the top of the pantheon of gods. Wouldn’t that be cool, if that was a person, and that person had influence over everyone’s worlds? That’s when the idea, or the obsession, about reinventing god games came into my head, and that’s when this thought about having a god of gods came in. Then I thought, well, it couldn’t be someone like me. It couldn’t be someone I worked with. It would have to be someone from a normal walk of life. How do you find that person at the start of the game?

That led to the idea about, wouldn’t this be an amazing thing for someone to get? How would they feel? That led to the idea of Curiosity, really, that we needed to experiment with all this tech about connecting people together and about them expressing with such a limited vocabulary. Those two things came together, and then Curiosity was released. The center of the cube came way before the cube, and it came out of the desire to use some of the technology that’s around that isn’t really being used and exploited yet. I’m sure it will be. That’s where it came about.

Fortunately, I’m in a position now that the center of the cube is not only the ability to influence and change aspects of the game – I’ll talk about how that works in a second – but also it is to receive a share of every penny that 22Cans gets from Curiosity. That goes out to the god of gods. Now, the interesting thing is that what Bryan has won is a grace period where he can be god of gods for a certain amount of time. He is going to be god of gods. We’re talking about that period of time. It won’t be less than a few months. It might not be more than a year. Then we’ll unveil the ability to usurp the god of gods and replace the god of gods with someone else. That someone else will then take on all of Brian’s powers.

RPS: So being the god of gods is temporary. Don’t you think that lessens the impact of the Curiosity prize? Seems quite a bit less life-changing if it only lasts a year or so.

Molyneux: It doesn’t seem right to me that Brian is god of gods for all time. It seems right to me that he has a period of time to be a god of gods. That can’t be a few days. Definitely not. It needs to be a substantial amount of time. In that time, many things can happen. It depends on how successful the game is, how much actual physical money he gets of course, but it should be not an inconceivable amount of time.

That will be a year from release, by the way, not a year from today. There would need to be enough time to make it meaningful for him, in every sense of the word. But we could make it five years. We could make it ten years. I think I wanted, before I thought about exactly what the time would be, I wanted to gauge what people’s reactions were. Not only to the center of what Curiosity was, but also to gauge the reactions to Godus. Maybe later today, but certainly tomorrow, we’re releasing the alpha of Godus to our Kickstarter pledgers. It didn’t seem like that sort of decision should be taken without some feedback from the people who will be playing Godus.

RPS: What would have happened to Curiosity’s prize if Godus didn’t get funded on Kickstarter?

Molyneux: That’s the interesting thing. Everyone says this, that they do the Kickstarter because they want to get feedback from people. Everyone says that. But that’s really what we did Kickstarter for. We did it because, in my opinion, a great idea is nothing when it comes to great games. It’s a good idea with a great team and a game that’s been played for thousands of hours to polish and refine and tune and tweak it. The 22 of us here just aren’t smart enough people to think of all the things that should be in the game, all the issues and the balancing we should use.

What I really wanted is to use a controlled stage approach to developing the game. In the next 48 hours it will go out into 900 people’s hands. We’re going to look at the way they play, get feedback from them. We’ll be asking them to fill out surveys. We’re going to be looking at analytics on their play style. We’ll be taking their suggestions on the forums and refining and polishing the game. Then we’re going to open that up to a bigger audience for the beta pledgers. That’s around about 17,000 people. Then we may even open it up to a wider, more public audience, depending on how it goes.

That was the important thing about Kickstarter. Secondarily, it was the money. Kickstarter is a fantastic way of raising money from people who believe in the thing that you’re doing. I love that. If we hadn’t been funded on Kickstarter, we would have had to seek another way of getting that money in, but I’m so obsessive about developing Godus. That is the only thing on people’s minds now, developing Godus. We probably would have found another route to developing the game.

RPS: Why did you opt to launch Curiosity before securing funding for Godus? Why couldn’t you have made sure that you had that and then launched Curiosity?

Molyneux: That’s a very good question. The truth of the matter, I’ll be completely honest with you, is that being as small a company as we are, and with me leading that company, I just take these insane risks all the time. One of those insane risks was not doing it the logical way. The logical way may have been to launch the Kickstarter first, to get the Kickstarter through, and then launch Curiosity, but it so happened that… The brilliant thing about Curiosity is it solved a lot of problems all in one. One of the problems it solved is that we needed to experiment with the technology that would make the Godus idea possible. Whether that should have come before the Kickstarter or after the Kickstarter is a matter of debate, but at the core and the center of the Godus idea is linking all these worlds together.

Being as small as we are, with me leading the company, I just take these insane risks all the time.

That hadn’t been done before. It needed something like Curiosity to experiment with that idea, and the end of Curiosity proved, actually, that the idea worked. You can have an experience which is delightful on everyone’s devices and connect thousands of people together concurrently. That’s the first thing. The other problem that Curiosity solved — and this is a developmental problem, but it’s always a big issue – is that when you pull a team together for the first time, you have to give them something to work on. The thing that they work on cannot be your ultimate dream game, because the team is bonding and jelling and coming together. The brilliant thing about Curiosity is that it was a very simple problem for the team to get their heads round. It wasn’t a game. It didn’t require months of design. It was a cube in the corner of a white room that you could tap on. That was a brilliant thing, in the early days of 22Cans, for three people to get their teeth into, and for the team to grow to 10 people or 15 people – I can’t remember the exact number on the day of launch.

It wasn’t until late October [2012] that we really had a full team to start on the development of Godus. We didn’t really start on Godus until just before the Kickstarter. So you’re right. In logical hindsight terms, maybe it would have been better or safer or less risky to release the Kickstarter before Curiosity, but we did it that way round because we wanted to prove the technology, and because we wanted to get the team jelled, and because… During the Kickstarter, to do it well, it requires a big team of people. You have to have all the people doing videos. You have to have a prototype. You have to have screenshots. You have to have art. We simply didn’t have that at the start of 22Cans.

RPS: But you were also kind of gambling with people’s time and money. People had already put a lot into Curiosity. If they hit the center and didn’t find the thing that was intended to be there, that would have rung pretty hollow.

Molyneux: The prize was always the prize. We’ve just been very lucky that people can get their hands on Godus, those who pledged, within a few hours of Curiosity finishing. If we had been delayed by the Kickstarter not being funded, we still would be developing Godus. We would have had to go to more conventional venture capital or family and friends investing in the company. All that would have done is delayed Godus. It wouldn’t have meant that it would never exist, unless some disaster happened. We were always destined to do Godus. The question would then be, how long someone like Bryan had to wait before enacting his god powers?

RPS: What exactly is he going to be able to do within the game? What does being the god of gods entail?

Molyneux: There is going to be a god control panel. On that god control panel, there will be a number of options that he can choose. Those options sometimes are binary options, like “yes, it’s this” or “no, it’s that.” Sometimes they’re more like slider options – “I want this much of this or this little of that.” These options can be applied to the whole world, to every Godus player, or a sub-section of the world.

The sort of things that Bryan will be able to decide are that he may decide, for example, that all followers in the world should work harder. In everybody’s world, the god of gods declares that they should work as hard as they possibly can. Another decision may be that all followers in the worlds should work less hard, but be happier. So they’re going to be slightly morally-based decisions. They’re going to be morally-based decisions which affect either the whole world or a sub-section of the world. And they could be game balance decisions.

What they aren’t going to be is carte blanche, uncontrolled, unbalanced, unrefined decisions, which would throw the balance of the game out entirely. Bryan can absolutely request something to happen, and we will do our best efforts to make that happen, but they can’t be unreasonable. He can’t decide that everybody in Canada’s worlds explode. There are limits to his power. That dashboard that’s there will be active for him every period of time. Probably once every week. He will also be, of course, receiving a royalty from every penny of every version or every possible avenue of revenue that we get in from Godus.

RPS: Once again, though, doesn’t that make this whole thing less life-changing? It sounds fairly tame, all told.

Molyneux:  Obviously there have to be limits. But I’m sure that him experiencing this is going to be an interesting thing. I’m sure that, because of his experience, he’s going to think of things which are even more interesting than we would have thought of. We love that. The key thing to remember here is that when we release the game later this year, we’re going to continue developing it, without stopping. We’re not moving on to another IP even. Part of the fascinating thing is, when you’ve got something you feel is going to be really good, why stop doing it? Why not continue evolving it? That evolution will obviously involve someone like Bryan.

RPS: But you’re still putting some pretty hard limits on what he can ultimately do. Does that make 22Cans the god of god of gods?

Molyneux: [laughs] Well, no, because it’s the decisions that he makes. Now, a lot of those decisions, I hope, are going to be inspired by the community. Already we’ve got #FollowBrian started on Twitter. We’ve already received a gift to pass on to Brian from one of the potential followers. We’ll just have to see how that goes.

For this idea to work, it needs to be someone who is not part of the team, who can stand outside the forest of development, stand back. This was one of our problems – how to find that person? In a way, it’s good that Brian isn’t a core gamer. One of my fears was he was going to be so very very game-oriented and want to move it towards a more core element, but I don’t feel that he is.

RPS: Exactly how much is Bryan making? What percentage?

Molyneux: We’re settling on that number at the moment. Part of the problem here is that I had to keep this secret. I kept this secret for years. Then it was the cameraman and the sound guy who recorded the final video. Those were the only people that knew what it was. And so if I opened it up to things like programmers at 22Cans or the legal people, then it would get out. Someone would say something on Twitter.

I’ve got the meeting with the financial guy and the legal guy tomorrow to settle on how we calculate the percentage and what the percentage will be. I think this is one of those areas where we have to get Bryan’s sign-off. He has to agree to share what that number would be. I don’t think it would be legally correct for me to say, “It’s going to be this much” without him. How much money he receives is kind of a private issue to him. The only thing I’d say is my ambition, absolutely, is for it to be percentage points, not fractions of a percentage. Definitely not.

RPS: Curiosity never ended up making it to PC, even though it was announced at a PC show (that RPS helps put on, no less), Rezzed.

Molyneux: Oh, yeah. It is a PC show, I guess, isn’t it? We never put it on PC because it felt a little bit too, I think, trivial? Is that the right word? It was more about taking it out of your pocket and tapping for five minutes than it was about sitting down for a good long tap-fest. We could have put it on PC. We could have put it on browser. We could have done a number of different things to it. And, god, we could have taken it in a million different directions. But when we released Curiosity, we moved so that only a few people were working on Curiosity, because we wanted to obsess about Godus.

RPS: It’s just a bit strange that a mobile player gets to be god of gods for a bunch of people who are playing on PC, many of whom didn’t get a chance to even compete for the role.

Molyneux: Yeah, that’s a very good point. I hadn’t even thought of that, what an insane thing this is. You’re right. To be absolutely fair, if someone was a PC owner and they didn’t have a mobile device, then they wouldn’t have a chance to be god of gods. That means that’s not very fair. But I guess they could be the leader of the revolution that overthrows Bryan. Not that I have plans to overthrow him of course. Does that make it fair? That’s just me thinking out loud.

RPS: The other side of it is that initially, you said it was going to be on PC, and for a lot of people that’s just like, “Okay, we’re getting a thing.” When they don’t get the thing that they thought they were going to get, then they’re going to be disappointed. They will trust you less.

Molyneux: Did I say it was going to be on PC?

RPS: Yeah, I think that was part of the initial launch announcement, way back when.

Molyneux: Gosh. Do you remember that, Jack [turns away from mic to address Jack Attridge in his office].

Attridge: I think we did, because we were making the game on Unity, so it was very easy for us to make it on PC.

Molyneux: Oh, yes. Why didn’t we do it on PC?

Attridge: Well, I mean, it’s a game that was not very…

Molyneux: I think you’ve caught us here a little bit, in that we maybe said it was possible to do on PC, but I think we didn’t do it on PC because we put all of our love of tapping into tapping with a finger and not with a mouse. I can’t remember playing it on PC, but I can imagine it would be a little bit more tedious with a mouse than it would be with a finger. But it’s a valid point.

RPS: Because of that, aren’t you worried that you’ve reduced your credibility in the eyes of some of the people who are going to be getting Godus? Or future games in general? Since a lot of people expected PC and never got it.

Molyneux: To be honest with you, I didn’t feel that pressure from people. I don’t think I can remember many people requesting that. There were a lot more people that requested certain sorts of Android devices that we couldn’t support.

I didn’t feel that pressure, but that doesn’t mean that pressure wasn’t there. We could have done it on PC. But you must remember that Curiosity cost us quite a bit of money. We’re only a small team, so we had to choose the devices that we supported carefully. It is a point, I suppose. If you were a PC player and didn’t have a mobile device that you downloaded Curiosity onto, then you didn’t have a chance to enter into the spirit of Curiosity. But then how would people know? They wouldn’t know until afterwards, what’s in the middle?

RPS: Which makes the god of gods concept maybe even confusing for some of those players. They get on and think, “Who’s this person that rules over the whole world? Why do they get to do it and I don’t?”

Molyneux: Yeah. In fact, I’m sure that people will probably even forget about Curiosity by the time they get their hands on Godus, and I’m sure many people will not have even heard of Curiosity. The dramatic narrative of having a single human being who is deemed as god of gods should be an exciting narrative in itself, and not one that’s dependent on knowing that Curiosity even existed. That is the key point here. Having a human being who is known as god of gods and who players can appreciate or not or rebel against is there for dramatic reasons. It’s not there just to give away a prize at the end of Curiosity. Do you see what I mean?

We could have done it on PC, but Curiosity cost us quite a bit of money.

RPS: I understand that, but I think it’s only natural for people to be, you know, curious about why it happened. They’ll try to find out.

Molyneux: Yeah, that’s true. But the truth is that it didn’t happen because of Curiosity. Curiosity was a way to make this happen. Not the reason for it to happen. It happened for gameplay and narrative reasons, because it’s a unique thing that’s never happened before in the game, to have this one person with this extent of power. To that extent, I could have just turned round and said, “It’s going to be you.” I could have said it’s going to be the third person in Godus to do X, Y, and Z first. I could have said, “Right, let’s all vote on the nicest person we know.” Curiosity was a way to select that person, but Curiosity isn’t the reason that the person is there. The reason that person is there is to make the game better, if that makes sense.

RPS: Doesn’t that sort of lend credence to the people who declared Curiosity a giant ad for Godus, then?

Molyneux: Well, that’s an interesting one. I thought that people would start to say Curiosity’s an advert for Godus. There’s a couple of thoughts on this. Of course I totally understand what people are saying when they say that. The first thing is that Curiosity existed for a multitude of reasons. We tried to be really clear that it was an experiment. We only used monetization in Curiosity in the form of that experiment, not to try and cheat people out of money. We tried to test the technologies that we would later use in Godus. We tested the psychology of what we were doing and have used in Godus. To that extent, we called it an experiment.

But yes, the center of Curiosity is something which continues to be intriguing in Godus. Maybe Curiosity isn’t over, it’s just changed into Godus. I do think that every game you get involved with ends up being an advert for the next game. There’s a saying I’ve always believed is true – you’re only as good as your last game. That thought led me to leave Microsoft. My previous game was always an advert for my next game, and you could say that Fable II was the best advert for Fable III and so on.

We tried not to overplay that. It would have been easy to put Godus adverts on every side of the cube or to drive people to our website all the time or to monetize it in a way that we didn’t, but we tried to keep it pure. The purity of Curiosity was, is the power of curiosity enough for people to get to the center? That’s all we said. We tried not to overplay that or oversell that. We didn’t try to charge for downloading the app or anything like that.

So although I see people’s point, maybe people can see what we were trying to do, and that was trying to find an intriguing way of picking someone to be god of gods, experimenting with technology and psychology that would go on to help us make Godus the best it could possibly be, and to get ourselves used to this multi-device, multi-connected universe that we now exist in.

RPS: Was Curiosity, on its own, ultimately profitable?

Molyneux: No. Definitely not. But, I’ll be honest with you, it ended up paying for its servers, which has been good. We didn’t play the monetization line particularly hard. We charged for a few things. We charged for removing cubes or adding cubes. Not because… Well, don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind making money. I never mind making money. But we only charged because it was part of the experiment. The interesting thing in the end was, would people pay money to be lazy and remove cubes, or would they pay money to be disruptive?

We resisted the temptation to overly monetize. We could have monetized by charging people for gold coins. We could have charged for the app. We could have charged for an update. But I don’t think that would have been right to do that, because it was an experiment. We tried never to sell it as a game. It was an experiment that everyone was involved in, and that was a valid experiment, I think, in itself.

If there had been something like a big pile of cash in the middle, or a sports car or something like that, then maybe people wouldn’t have felt better, or maybe felt worse. I think what’s in the center of Curiosity is, philosophically, interesting. It’s something which is fascinating, and something that I thought about and dwelled on for many years. It somehow fits what Curiosity was.

Check back tomorrow to see what Molyneux has to say about GODUS’ brand new publisher (something he explicitly promised against during the Kickstarter), possibilities of an online requirement, GODUS’ business model and how much the publisher will influence it, and whether or not 22Cans’ 22 experiments will continue after GODUS is finished.  

, , , , .

163 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. snappycakes says:

    He seems to take pride in speaking bollocks and doublespeak and never solidly getting behind anything. Maybe this is because of his current standing reputation of breaking previous promises that he made. Like a games industry Nick Clegg.

    • pakoito says:

      I’m thinking Curiosity has been the precise moment where unfulfilled design promises became just plain lies.

      I liked him as a “crazy impossible to implement idea” guy, but not as a PR liar.

      • Chalky says:

        Congratulations, you won curiosity! Your prize is Peter Molyneux talking a load of old shit! Again!

        • SanguineAngel says:

          And money. And an interesting part to play in an interesting gaming concept. Tragic

        • Lev Astov says:

          Seriously, what the heck is wrong with you people? I cannot possibly have thought of a more interesting, unique thing to have won from this that couldn’t have come from anyone else but 22cans. Anyone can give money, or various other physical rewards, but to be a part of making Godus what it is? That’s really cool. Now, I just hope they can deliver.

          • Premium User Badge

            Rikard Peterson says:

            @Lev: Yes. This exactly.

            I can understand if people are sceptical to the god-of-gods idea, as it’s something new and original that’s never been tried before. (I don’t have an opinion on it, since we don’t know enough about it yet.) But I don’t understand how people can be upset and disappointed by Curiosity. They must have had insanely high expectations, and Peter M. can’t be fairly blamed for that.

          • LintMan says:

            I think people would be less cynical if Molyneux hadn’t quite hyped up the “life-changing” aspect so much and especially if Curiosity hadn’t offered a $50000 “diamond pickaxe” DLC. I’m betting the actual prize money is worth far far less than that.

          • Premium User Badge

            Big Murray says:

            That depends on how successful Godus is, doesn’t it. If Molyneux is true to his word and gives him percentage points worth of sales, then it’s very very possible that he could get more than £50,000 out of this.

            In fact, this could make him very rich indeed.

      • Triplanetary says:

        Yeah, his promises have gotten less ambitious of late, but he doesn’t seem to realize that, correspondingly, expectations that those promises will actually be fulfilled increase.

        I mean, when he promised massive, unprecedented levels of scope and freedom in games like Fable and Freelancer, and instead delivered a couple of solid, enjoyable games that didn’t really break any new ground, people understood.

        But when he says shit like, “Yeah, we’ll release that on PC,” and then doesn’t, and his only excuse is, “Oh, I forgot lol *shrug*” there’s just no sympathy for him. He *could* release it on PC, easily, he just doesn’t give a shit.

      • Premium User Badge

        Continuity says:

        Ah, I like him anyway. To be frank Peter is a character and you can always count on him for interesting, and usually crazy ideas. If its a choice between Peter’s crazy crap or EA’s bland cookie-cutter drek.. I’ll side with Peter every time.

        • The Random One says:

          Yeah. I’m not sure I’d buy a Molyneux game, buy I’d buy a Molyneux plushie. He’s adorable.

        • Premium User Badge

          Mr Coot says:

          Mm. Yes. When he gets a bit OTT enthusiastic I am all: ”Tom the cabin boy smiled quietly to himself” a la Captain Pugwash. But… Bullfrog. Populous. Syndicate. DK 1 & 2. These are the reasons I keep the faith.

      • LionsPhil says:

        Yeah. He’s gone from chlidlike gonna-make-me-a-game-and-its-gonna-have-EXPLOSIONS-and-LASERS-and-ROBOTS ungrounded dreamer overscoping to just plain out slimeball evasion.

    • WarderDragon says:

      I don’t think he necessarily takes pride in doublespeak, but I don’t think he has learnt a single thing from all the times he’s failed to live up to his promises before. I think he honestly believes that it’s genuinely okay to promise the world and deliver a neighborhood as long as he tried his best.

      I’m done with that, though. He has long since used up any credibility as a designer in my eyes. Curiosity and Fable 3 are both testaments to that.

      • Ringwraith says:

        He gets carried away when talking to people, by his own admission.
        He also refers to himself as being a PR nightmare.
        I am pretty sure he believes what he’s saying, but he’s very much an ideas person and doesn’t give them that much thought sometimes.

    • MrThingy says:

      ” Like a games industry Nick Clegg.”

      Well, unlike Clegglet, he does have a modicum of influence.

    • S Jay says:

      Agreed. I don’t think Molyneux is delusional, he just revealed himself as a pathological liar.

    • killias2 says:

      I will admit, I was surprised when Molyneux ended up in the same coalition as the Tories. Who knew that a vote for Molyneux was a vote for Cameron?

    • Squigibo says:

      To this day, I don’t understand why anybody listens to a single word this guy says. Promises the world in every game, hypes it, get’s the funding, then what is released is a empty, soulless game that nobody wants to play more than a demo. Every title seems unfinished, and unsupported. As soon as it releases, the crack design team that was supposed to produce something truly epic, vanishes, get’s farmed out to REAL developers. He’s a snake oil salesman, so much to the point, that anything he promotes, I instantly ignore.

  2. Pazguato says:

    “The center of the cube came way before the cube.” And more lies…

    Congratulations for your outstanding and incisive interview, Nathan.

    • Grey Ganado says:

      I don’t see how that’s a lie.

      • EhsanKia says:

        Yeah, and I personally found the interviewer a bit too rude. He asked great questions overall, but he was in offense mod trying to bring Molyneux down and make him admit that he was wrong and he did the wrong thing and he lied, etc. I don’t care how much you dislike someone, if you invite someone for an interview and the guy puts aside time for you, it’s just wrong to be disrespectful towards them. I didn’t mind it much at first, but the whole thing is just attack after attack.

  3. povu says:

    I always thought they didn’t release Curiosity on PC because it would be easy to ‘cheat’ with programs to rapidly click on squares perfectly. Not that it would matter.

    • pakoito says:

      You can still do it, you had to sniff outgoing collections and fake the calls as if they were done from a device. There were bots in the gamn.

      • LionsPhil says:

        Please tell me someone wrote one which carved crudely drawn penises all over the cube.

        I will be disappointed in the Internet if this opportunity was missed.

    • AzzerUK says:

      Given that they themselves “cheated” by arbitrarily altering how many layers were left for people to chip away on a whim, then it would probably have been irrelevant whether there was an army of people cheating away on PC’s or not. What’s even more ridiculous is they were asking people to pay money to add or remove cubes – which is totally undermined again when they manually alter how many cubes are left. See here; “To help players along, 22cans dropped a ‘virtual bomb’ on the cube, reducing it to just 50 layers.”.

      • S Jay says:

        Which is obvious why: Molyneux finally figured out what would be inside the cube, so the infinite cube transformed into a 50 layers cube.

  4. Zenicetus says:

    Remind me why I would want to pay for a strategy game where the overall balance factors could be changed, arbitrarily and on a whim, by an 18 year old kid?

    This sounds like a lot more fun for Molyneux to stand back and giggle at the results, than it does for the people he’s asking to buy the game.

    Don’t get me wrong, I like strategy games that include random factors that shake up the status quo (“events” in games like Endless Space). But I think it feels different when it’s decided at random by the computer, and it’s a setting I can disable.

    • Vorphalack says:

      ”Remind me why I would want to pay for a strategy game where the overall balance factors could be changed, arbitrarily and on a whim, by an 18 year old kid?”

      BLASPHEMER! B’Ryan, God of Gods (temp.) will not stand for your mortal flippantry! A thousand Dooms shall be sent upon you, your bloodline cursed to mediocrity, and your most outlandish dreams shall remain unfulfilled!

      Sincerely, the Cult of B’Ryan, Edinburgh

    • Premium User Badge

      Surlywombat says:

      Demis hassabis co-created Theme Park at 17. So I don’t think age has much to do anything really.

      • S Jay says:

        Mozart composed his first symphony at age 8.

        Where is your symphony though?

        I don’t think the age is the real question here. I would be bored if I backed a game and then suddenly some random person that has the merit of tapping on a phone could change my game experience.

      • Sucram says:

        Demis is a very smart guy, but it’s a bit misleading to say he co-created Theme Park. He mostly worked on some of the AI processes and his work got largely discarded with the console ports.

    • SanguineAngel says:

      Because it will be interesting and unpredictable and as a part of a game, that can be exciting?

      • Zenicetus says:

        Sure, but you can do that with an algorithm too. It’s already done that way in other games that feature random environmental catastrophes or benefits.

        From the description in the interview, it sounds like there won’t be any personal 1 to 1 interaction with B’Ryan, just global changes that affect everybody. That could just as easily be done with an algorithm set to the same limiting parameters. By setting those limits — not allowing B’Rayn to blow up the worlds of people just in Canada, for example — Molyneux is just using him as a human dice roller. I don’t see the point. It would only be interesting (to me, anyway) if B’Ryan really did have complete arbitrary powers to screw up or elevate the game.

        Strategy games appeal to control freaks, and I just don’t know how many strategy gamers will buy into this idea. And I mean “buy into” in terms of time investment, if it’s a F2P game.

        • Captchist says:

          You could have an algorithm arbitrarily tweak things.
          You can have a person interact with the people – social media, a blog, youtube videos. You could have organised groups trying to change Bryans mind, or political schisms or all sorts of stuff. I’m reminded of the Minecraft server somebody worked on and then put on a USB key and gave away. These are potentially interesting social experiments.

          In practice? It’s going to be shit probably. But the idea has a kernel of potential awesome in it if it weren’t being done by Peter and by somebody selected for their ability to tap things.

          • Zenicetus says:

            I agree that there’s a kernel of interesting idea there, but it seems like something that would be set up as a Uni lab experiment in social sciences, not a commercial game.

            I think I’m just reacting to the way everything has to involve “social media” these days (grumble, grumble, ratzenfratzen!). I’m an older gamer who has always enjoyed the classic singleplayer God Games, and it’s been a long time since we’ve had a really good one. It also seems like a lazy way to avoid writing good AI, which is another pet peeve of mine with current games going so heavily into multiplayer.

        • The Random One says:

          If you think that, when Molyneux reveals how to usurp the throne of Bryan the Improbably Lucky you should try to enthrone a logarithm in his place.

          Log God.

        • SanguineAngel says:

          Eh, there are plenty of people with different tastes. I like strategy games too but one thing I do not like is having complete control, or 100% predictable systems. I think that’s boring. I am sure plenty of people can appreciate it when the game throws curve balls at the player, who then has to manage the unexpected change of events.

          Your other issue – “why is it a person rather than an algorithm?” Can you honestly not see /any/ advantage to the human aspect of this at all? Half the point of Curiosity seemed to be experimenting with how people might interact and impact each other given an indirect connection. There is scope here for interaction between the the god of gods and the playerbase in unexpected ways. Even if it’s just through external social media. There’s scope for the god of god’s personality to shine through. And there’s scope for god to abandon us and leave us to our own devices. Even just the knowledge that there is a real person doing this stuff is interesting at least and potentially fun.

    • KevinLew says:

      Again, whatever this “God of Gods” title confers, anything that Bryan thinks of doing must be preapproved by the 22 Cans staff anyway. More than likely, the extent of his powers will be incredibly limited and would correspond to typical temporary bonuses/penalties in any other MMO or strategy game.

      Godus is going to be a free-to-play game anyway, so nobody is going to implement unbalanced game changes because people would just leave. I really don’t see how this prize is really worth that much. So far, all Molyneux has stated about Bryan’s role makes it sound like he will be a limited game moderator and temporary PR representative for 22 Cans. Best of all, he’s not even paid a guaranteed salary but instead has to get a commission based on game sales–something that he would realistically have little control over.

  5. Didden says:

    It was great, in a way, to see the passion that David has for what he does, as witnessed earlier in the year, and we should not be ashamed to show our emotions. And it is easy to knock this latest development, there is a case of the boy who cried wolf, that has crept into how people view him, which is justifiable. But you to hand it to him, for being a marketing genius on this one. The media ate it up, so it was always going to be an anti-climax.

  6. zachforrest says:

    fucking hell, how do you lot get through the standard double speak of woking/social life? It’s okay to fib a bit.

    LIAR! He’s lying Miss! MISSSSSSSSS! LYING

    • LionsPhil says:

      If your workplace involves this much deception, your workplace has problems.

      The wheels of social interaction are greased with a certain degree of careful diplomacy, but chronic streams of bull sooner or later bring the whole damn mess crashing down.

      • zachforrest says:

        *cough civil service cough*

      • Tatourmi says:

        See, that’s the problem, Molyneux never said in my honest opinion any real bull. He seems to be a deeply honest man. He has an idea, tries to execute it, and describes his dream to the audience. And he kind of always said it was what he did. I mean, the discrepancy between what is said and what is is FAR greater in your local national theatre or opera (If it is a little bit “populated”). Or even some museums. And nobody is complaining there. Sure people sometimes smile at the brochure, but I don’t hear them sneering loudly all over the place.
        And why? Well, because all of it is an interpretation. And all is interpretation. And you should always remember that what you see as an intemporal masterpiece depiction of love and treason might sound to the next guy like a bland story of a one night stand.
        And should you, because of that, not tell to people you like that you think this piece is AMAZINGSOME? No, because that is what you think. And if you try to be objective, and try to be actually strict in your use of the word, you will quickly realise that saying that it even is a play might very well be a mistake. But we have, as human beings, to jump the shark. To communicate what we feel. And people punish Molyneux for that. He is one of the few guys that actually speak their minds and is being punished for that heavily, while E.A pr can basically get away with anything because “meh”. I feel so bad for the guy.

      • MarcP says:

        Frankly, nothing in that interview strikes me as particulary odd, and as a consultant I happen to see a lot of workplaces. I wonder what *your* workplace is like, for you to be here all day, every day, replying multiple times to every RPS article. You sound like one of those IT guys who sit on their asses all day surfing the net, and answer “it’ll take us 3,000 man hours for the specs first” when prompted to add a single “yes/no” prompt box to a program.

  7. Premium User Badge

    Oozo says:

    A bit sad to see that that marvelous header picture comes without alt-text. Not that I personally can think of something witty.

    But I’m sure SOMEBODY COULD.

    • Premium User Badge

      Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

      Peter Molyneux has finally digitised himself into his own virtual padded room where he spends his days waxing lyrical about the inconceivable fidelity of the rubber walls. Or so he tells himself.

    • Premium User Badge

      darkChozo says:

      Fun fact: that’s actually the interior of a white cube currently embedded in Lord Bryan’s forehead.

  8. Neosubu says:

    It’s just all very “meh” in the end.. The entire vision and execution does not come across like a solid concept. The result is something pretty lame, the prize has nothing to do with anything.

    What does that guy care that he can be the god among gods ? Seriously, the whole idea is extremely underwhelming. And then Molyneux doesn’t even have the balls to really give him ultimate power, THAT would have been interesting : what would he do with that?..

    I call lame on the whole thing.

    • Simon Hawthorne says:

      Yeah – what happens when Bryan (or Brian?) gets bored and doesn’t play Godus anymore?

      What happens if he’s a bell-end?

      • Phantom_Renegade says:

        Well, people who buy and fund Molyneux games are pretty used to cruel and capricious gods by now.

      • Premium User Badge

        darkChozo says:

        At the risk of toeing the line of incredible pretentiousness, does it matter? They’re giving power over your game to some random guy; whatever he does with it, that’s somewhat interesting in itself. Even if he does nothing with it, the fact that he could has something of an impact. Now, whether you appreciate that impact or not is another story.

        Besides, his being an asshole or doing absolutely nothing would actually be pretty in line with more traditional gods-of-gods. Let’s just hope he doesn’t take after Zeus’s more, ah, interesting pursuits.

        • Simon Hawthorne says:

          I agree – these are interesting questions! When Brian breaks up with his girlfriend, will Godus players find an increase in floods in their games? When Brian has an exceptionally satisfying cheeseburger, will crops grow exponentially?

          Can the gamers of the world work backwards and figure out Brian’s state of mind from their collective experiences “Oh, there are more earthquakes than normal, Brian must’ve had a rough day at work.”

          This is some Black Mirror stuff happening right here!

  9. mechabuddha says:

    RPS: It’s just a bit strange that a mobile player gets to be god of gods for a bunch of people who are playing on PC, many of whom didn’t get a chance to even compete for the role.

    Molyneux: Yeah, that’s a very good point. I hadn’t even thought of that, what an insane thing this is. You’re right.

    My mind! It is boggled! How do you make a game without considering your audience?

    • TaylanK says:

      And this:
      “Molyneux: Did I say it was going to be on PC?
      RPS: Yeah, I think that was part of the initial launch announcement, way back when.
      Molyneux: Gosh. Do you remember that, Jack [turns away from mic to address Jack Attridge in his office].
      Attridge: I think we did, because we were making the game on Unity, so it was very easy for us to make it on PC.
      Molyneux: Oh, yes. Why didn’t we do it on PC?”

      It just shows the breathtaking lack of regard for people’s expectations. You’d think he’d at least write the bloody promises down, for godus sake. It’s all in his fickle head obviously.

      • DatonKallandor says:

        He is considering his audience. He just doesn’t consider PC part of his audience. A large portion of the ones that give him money, sure. But not his audience. And why should it be – it’s hardest to please. Much easier to take their money and develop for the easier customer.

        • TaylanK says:

          So you’re saying I can collect money from you by declaring you are my audience first, and then turn my back on you and say you’re no longer my audience when you ask me to repay? Hmm…

          Someone bring me a megaphone and a swivel chair! There is money to be made, games be damned!

    • Premium User Badge

      Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

      Molyneux: I don’t recall saying that it would be a game. It’s actually going to be a kinetic art installation in Trafalgar Square.

      • Tatourmi says:

        Fuck me, I’d still go and see it. And I don’t even live in England.

  10. Bobtree says:

    I predict that the center of Godus will be 100% pure Molyneux-grade bullshit.

  11. Premium User Badge

    ts061282 says:

    Quick! Somebody cram the sock back in his mouth, it’s got loose!

  12. Artist says:

    Peter Molyneux – still a genius! *claps hands*

  13. Simon Hawthorne says:

    Isn’t the point of an experiment to have results? So why haven’t they released the results?

    The question about whether people would pay to be disruptive is medium-level interesting – so tell us! Did more people pay to add cubes than take them away? That would be interesting!

    If Curiosity was an experiment, then what were the questions that Curiosity posed…and what were the answers?

    • merc-ai says:

      “Someone made an experiment to find out details he was interested in, but did not share his results with me”.
      I don’t see how not sharing their findings is a crime or something to attack. Neither why should you (or any Curiosity player) be entitled to know these results.

      • Simon Hawthorne says:

        That’s a very cute response, but I don’t get the impression that Molyneux has this information and is withholding it – instead I get the impression that he’s misusing words. But yes, using the word ‘entitled’ makes you very clever, thank you.

    • Ninja Foodstuff says:

      Yep, wanted to say the same thing. I think he just likes the way Gabe Newell says the same thing, without really understanding what he means when he says it.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Where’s the goddamn hypothesis?

      Braniac is more scientific than this. And they faked half of their stuff with explosives.

      • Premium User Badge

        DrScuttles says:

        Curiosly, I remember one chap on Brainiac running over custard. That’s more a damn well godly feat than anything Molyneux can pull out of his liars bumhole for Godus.

  14. Felixader says:

    Peehabs it is te mising of PR Persons controlling (or trying to) what Molyneux says, but it is indeed a sad day this one where i finally can see nothing else but Monlyneux taling oiut of his ass after reading this interview.

    Sigh, oh how the mighty have fallen.
    Or thos who managed at least to SEEM mighty.

  15. frightlever says:

    That was sad.

    Has anyone asked this guy Bryan what he thinks of the prize?

    • barney says:

      My first thoughts:

      “Hey Bryan, you’re God! Congrats man!”
      “Oh… Er… Cool! What does that entail?”
      “You get to adjust some ambient parameters for this other game we’re making for PC.”
      “When do I receive this… prize?”
      “Don’t know!”
      “Thanks. But that sounds a bit like dull work.”
      “We’ll pay you!”
      “But I already have work, and a social life, and other less admin-y games I might want to play.”
      “Not a problem!”
      “For anyone concerned? Really?”

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      I suspect Brian/Bryan is quite used to be mistaken for a god by now.

  16. Premium User Badge

    soulblur says:

    Yeah. Godus is so far the only Kickstarter I actively regret funding.

    • Premium User Badge

      Oozo says:

      For me, it might be “Clang”.
      Not sure, though. I definitely think that it looks and plays like a sub-par Die By The Sword. Then again, I can only play it with mouse and keyboard, and it was not made for those devices. And after all the hype, I’m certain that there is some hidden depth I just can’t touch. (And, of course, I backed it mostly for the crazy and ambitious idea, not because I was sure they could pull it off… still, the version they delivered was underwhelming at best.)

      Sorry for hijacking this thread, but I haven’t seen much talk about it around here, so I thought I’ll jump on the occasion.

      • pakoito says:

        No Time to Explain. Glorified flash game, and not even worth the $5 tag.

      • Premium User Badge

        Vandelay says:

        I played with the Hydra. It… didn’t really work. Perhaps I was just doing it wrong, but the movement was normally almost okay in the calibration, but crap in game. It worked for neither when you tried to lower the controls below hip height. Trying to keep the two controllers in line, particularly when making quick movements was almost impossible, which is probably where most of the problems come from. Still felt very off, even if you can keep them in line though.

        Still it was an early build, so hopefully newer versions will work better.

    • Lanfranc says:

      Maybe wait to see how the actual game turns out before passing judgement?

      • Premium User Badge

        Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

        I’ll summon a constable. He’ll be on a ship to Australia by morning.

      • barney says:

        That wasn’t passing judgment. It was somebody who invested in something on trust finding out it’s taking an unexpected direction. They’re allowed to feel regret, for God’s sake.

        • Lanfranc says:

          Relax. Anyone is perfectly free to feel anything as far as I’m concerned, it just seems a little premature to regret something before you have any idea how it will turn out.

          I backed Godus as well. Personally, I’m feeling rather sanguine about the whole thing.

    • Triplanetary says:

      I backed the Kickstarter at first, but then withdrew before it finished. Mwa ha ha.

  17. Premium User Badge

    Skeletor68 says:

    Peter has worked on some amazing things in his career, but bloody hell I don’t think I would like to work for him. Everything seems so unstructured and haphazard.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but if I worked on Godus and heard some kid was going to be messing with the balance and was also going to be making money off my work I’d feel a little weird about the whole situation.

  18. finalfanatik says:

    I quite like listening to Molyneux, if I’m honest.

    If you ignore the fact that what he says never really becomes reality, it’s nice to hear someone who genuinely seems passionate, and has a head filled with wacky ideas and big innovations that he wants to make real.

    Maybe one day he’ll manage it, and it will be a game changer (pun unintended).

    • Knightley4 says:

      I like the way he thinks. Both B&W 1 and Fable 1 were something quite different from other gaming experience i’ve had(especially B&W). And i haven’t heard anything about these games until i played them. Maybe that’s the case.

    • S Jay says:

      I guess the crazy old lady screaming at the walls in the asylum is also passionate abut screaming at walls.

  19. timethor says:

    The negativity both in the interview and the comments is a bit bewildering to me. The guy came up with a nice new concept, nothing earth-shattering but conceptually interesting, and implemented it.

    Cue accusations of double speak, lying and “But God wasn’t selected from the normal population!”. Neither was Jehovah.

    I’m not exactly sure what people expected. A billion dollars?

    • TaylanK says:

      Really? You don’t see how a commercial product people pay into needs to play fair with their expectations under which they agreed to fund his nice new concept?

      • timethor says:

        What expectations exactly?

        The entire point of Curiosity was that you shouldn’t have fixed expectations (if you already knew what to expect you wouldn’t be curious, right?)

        Or is the inclusion of a new feature in a kickstarted game somehow the worst thing ever (if so: might I suggest not investing in Kickstarted games. Especially not from a developer well known for at least trying to implement ambitious features)

        • S Jay says:

          Not Curiosity, GODUS.

          It was Kickstarted, which is the same as:

          Molyneux: I am going to make this game if I give me some money, give me?
          Backers: Alright, here is all my money!
          Molyneux: Thanks! Oh, BTW, there will be some random dude completely not related to this Kickstarter project that will control your world, k?
          Backer: uh?
          Molyneux: See you!

          • LionsPhil says:

            Don’t forget “oh, also I didn’t need the money and would have done it anyway”.

            Remember when Kickstarter was about patronage for projects that realistically weren’t going to happen otherwise?

          • Premium User Badge

            darkChozo says:

            @S Jay

            Couldn’t you apply that argument to basically any feature that wasn’t explicitly stated in the Kickstarter pitch?

          • Premium User Badge

            jrodman says:

            No, because most features are in keeping with the spirit of the project. This ain’t.

    • Ganjatron says:

      Why all the flak? Maybe because this man has promised stuff for his entire career and never delivered. This is nothing new, so why should we give him the benefit of the doubt? Until he delivers on things he’s promised over a solid amount of time, then sure I’ll listen, but as of now, no.

  20. Mathute87 says:

    Nonsense… He’s ambitious, but his faith relies a lot in what he believes people will think about his games.

    On a different note, you deleted my other comment quick enough, RPS. You’re getting good at it. Kudos

  21. Screen Blind says:

    “He’s not the messiah – he’s a very naughty boy”

    • jonahcutter says:

      “You know, you come from nothing, you’re going back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!”

  22. jeffcapeshop says:

    what if bryan can’t be arsed filling in his survey every week?

  23. sonson says:

    “And I thought, well, wouldn’t it be amazing one day to have the opportunity to redefine or reinvent what god games are?”

    But then he put that thought to one side to launch a redux of Populous which also incorporates a triad scheme

  24. DarkMalice says:

    Peter Molyneux: what a tit.

  25. Knightley4 says:

    I think they should make Bryan to be interested in being the God of Gods in Godus. So he would invest in his role. Like, if you want your share of cake, you should be involved. Not interested? Well, as time has passed, your followers forget about you, and you are slowly loosing you powers.

    B&W/Pratchett thing.

  26. zaphod42 says:

    Don’t believe his lies. Oh my god molyneux has his ass so far up his head. This guy is so completely out of touch with the industry.

    All he ever does is muse “Wouldn’t it be cool if?”

    He has no idea what makes a good product; nor how to manage a team, market a product, or anything.

    He needs to be driven out of the games industry. He’s a very terrible influence.

    Hell, the guy was actually BRAGGING on his twitter that he made his programmers stay up all night and work overtime to cover up his mistakes as a director. Wow. What a guy.

  27. SanguineAngel says:

    Gosh there’s a lot of miserable buggers here today.

    I mean, I can understand that the centre of curiosity may be a bit underwhelming for people – it’s not exactly some mind blowing turning life on its head. It was never going to be though, was it? Did anyone really expect to find the meaning of life? They are developers, after all. Personally, I found the reveal video itself far more painful than the actual prize. There’s something about the way Peter Molyneux talks that comes across poorly, not to knock his passion just his public speaking.

    The % royalty for Godus certainly has the potential to be very nice and, depending on the success of the game, if not life altering then perhaps life enhancing.

    As to the god of gods idea, I think that /is/ genuinely interesting. It reminds me of the voting system for Anno 2070 really. It’s a bit of an experiment and I am actually quite excited by the idea.

    And to those of you accusing PM of some sort of duplicitous underhanded sneakiness – what a lot of rubbish. I admit that I find him a bit uncomfortable in the way he phrases things – he always has been for decades. And sure, he has a long history of under-delivering on his promises (or leaving them by the wayside) and I am pretty convinced his is scatterbrained as all heck but malicious? I really doubt it. I can certainly believe that he thought up the idea of the god of gods yonks ago and he’s just the sort of mad man who would create curiosity entirely to that end.

    • MellowKrogoth says:

      I think Molyneux held his promise of giving something interesting to the person who opened the cube. Getting to work with people from the games industry especially a legend like Peter Molyneux is pretty life-changing if you ask me. Who wouldn’t like to have a direct channel to some game studio to give them some ideas? And the guys is even gonna get paid, pretty awesome.

      It’s clear they’re still coming up with some of the details about what this “God of gods” can do and how he can be overthrown (because GODUS is still in development), but I find it more interesting to have an insight into the creative process than having everything kept under wraps until a PR department decides otherwise.

      I’m not even sure what people are ranting about in the comments. Changing your mind after announcing a PC version… yeah that can happen, an annoucement isn’t a contract. A bit of improvisation for the prize inside the cube… why not? Even if they made up the prize 1 min after the cube was opened, if they came up with something decent who cares?

      • derbefrier says:

        really hes just cool to hate at the moment it seems, most of these comments are knee jerking nonsense. I found the interview interesting and eye opening to finally see what he was thinking. Its a cool idea i think, it could fail or be awesome but to approach this with so much animosity as most people here seem to do just makes no sense to me. Hes an interesting figure in the industry and makes decent games. just sit back and enjoy the show for gods sake and quit being so damn hateful all the time.

        • spacedyemeerkat says:

          Couldn’t agree more. The negativity on this forum is utterly poisonous sometimes.

      • guygodbois00 says:

        Peter, is that you, man?

  28. Morzak says:

    Does anyone still give any weight to his word? . The guy never ever delivers on his promises, since B&W it’s a lot of of promises that never get implemented, and the implementation of what is there isn’t exactly great either.

    Honestly let the guy dream up stuff, just never let him design the game. He just doesn’t seem to be able to put it together.

  29. TaylanK says:

    We’re talking about a box here and nobody has made a reference to this yet?

  30. Serious J says:

    Thank you for asking him hard questions instead of dancing around his ego like many other publications would.

  31. SkittleDiddler says:

    So, given RPS’s history, we can expect another handful of Molyneux-related pieces over the next couple weeks?

    I don’t understand the weird obsession you people have with this guy.

  32. bit.bat says:

    Thank you Nathan, very interesting interview. Looking forward to tomorrow!

  33. Premium User Badge

    cpt_freakout says:

    I think it would be very interesting if RPS could contact Bryan and interview him as well, just to see how he feels and what he thinks about the whole thing. The money could certainly be life-changing, but what if he’s a rich kid with no need for it? What if he’s not really into videogames? Curiosity was more of a ‘somewhat fun time-passing app’ than anything else, after all. This ‘bring people together’ thing that PM has for these projects doesn’t seem to account for the possibility that those people might not give a shit. Don’t get me wrong, I still think it’s a very positive idea (way better than the straightforward deathmatch / team deathmatch kind of community gamers usually gather into), and I believe him when he says it’s an experiment: he just doesn’t know what’s going to come of it. Experimenting is good, and the lack of it is what’s given us so many sequels and reboots instead of new adventures for us to go on. Then again, we all want ‘products’ and not games, don’t we? Anyway, I think you guys should look up Bryan and see what’s up with him. :P

  34. somnolentsurfer says:

    So, is Rezzed a show for ‘PC games’ and ‘indie games’, or is it a show for games that are ‘PC and indie’? ‘Cause I always thought it was the former. Rome II, for example, hardly fits the second description.

  35. db1331 says:

    This guy is the biggest fucking hack in the entire industry. I came in here to complain about the interviewer throwing him softballs and basically sucking him off about how much a visionary he is, but Nathan actually took him to task a little bit. Still though, you shouldn’t even be giving him interviews. We need to just ignore him until he goes away. His cube “experiment” was shit, the prize is shit, and his next game will be shit. Just like his last game. And the game before that. And the game before that. It’s completely absurd that people still take him even the slightest bit seriously. It would be like getting invited over to someone’s house for a steak dinner, and you sit down at the table, and he just plops a steaming plate of shit in front of you and says, “Sorry, the steaks didn’t turn out the way I envisioned. I shit on this plate though. It will be better next time.” Then you go back for a steak dinner again the following week, and again he serves you shit. How many times does he have to serve you shit before you stop coming over? What are we up to now, 5 or 6 times?

    • Knightley4 says:

      “I came in here to complain about the interviewer throwing him softballs and basically sucking him off about how much a visionary he is, but Nathan actually took him to task a little bit.”
      So you came in here to complain about the interview before you read this interview?

      • db1331 says:

        Sure. I was expecting him to just heap undeserved praise and on Peter like everyone else does every time they talk to him, instead of calling him on his bullshit. I was pleasantly surprised to see otherwise.

    • somnolentsurfer says:

      So, it’s safe to assume you weren’t a fan of the Fable series?

    • AlienMind says:

      Why not, EA is also able to on with this tactic forever. Naive people really do grow on trees.

  36. TwwIX says:

    Somebody give this man an award for PR trolling since some of you fucktards continue to fall for his bullshit.

  37. S Jay says:

    He didn’t answer a single question. I am beginning to think he is not delusional, just not very honest.

  38. Jenks says:

    This was my favorite part:

    N: Why wasn’t this on PC?
    P: Huh?
    N: You announced it at a PC event.
    P: So?
    N: And then you said it would be on the PC.
    P: Uh, I did?
    N: You did.
    P: I don’t remember that.
    N: You said it and you’re a liar.
    P: I don’t remember saying it, and if I did, you’re the first person to remind me of it, because only the stupidest of assholes would ever ask to play a game on PC where the entire game is clicking boxes at random to make them disappear. It’s a game for stupid people. Literally zero people have asked me why there isn’t a PC version of this between the time it was announced, and right now.
    N: Uh, credibility or something.
    P: k

  39. Premium User Badge

    wyrmsine says:

    Thanks, illuminating interview. I miss the days when I could expect a good game and an interesting experiment out of Molyneux. It’s reached a point where he doesn’t even feign respect for his customers, and I get the impression his future products are going to be half-assed tech demos under the guise of experimentation.

  40. Loque says:

    Molyneux was a visionairy and a good guy. Now he’s just a visionairy.

  41. BurningPet says:

    Well, for some reason, i quite like this god of gods shite. imagine when peter implement the ability to make tributes to the all mighty bri/yan, and only those who pay real monies gets their message request sent to him.

    “oh lord hear my praying! i require more minerals! here’s 20 bucks, have fun you beautiful all mighty! “

  42. Hmm-Hmm. says:

    I like how the video portrays Molyneux in a rather.. stereotypically larger-than-life fashion. The voice, clothing, the contrasting dark and whites.. he’s really, truly full of himself, isn’t he?

    I don’t like to insult people, but this makes me feel like Molyneux needs a serious appointment with reality.

  43. Moraven says:

    The God powers sound interesting. Makes me think of Anno and it’s online features. People vote for a faction for a certain bonus and world events.

    Then I think there has been a few Asian MMOs where one person has the King’s chair until he is taken down by opposing guilds.

  44. Mctittles says:

    So if this doesn’t start until a year after the game’s release, who’s to say people will even be playing it anymore by then. And then after a year someone else takes over; when they are down to a handful of people logging in each week?

  45. Lemming says:

    The thing that concerns me is that this ‘god of gods’ position is available at all. I backed Godus because I want a new populous to play with offline, on my own. I don’ t want outside influence. Is this going to bleed into the main game or is this just for the shitty mobile version no one cares about?

  46. AlienMind says:

    I just ate the pizza among pizzas.
    I’m honest with you.
    ..
    Give me money!

  47. Kefren says:

    I’ve forgotten what filter to add to remove the irritating box quotes, can anyone help me please?

    • pupsikaso says:

      Something such as pullquotes, I think?

    • Premium User Badge

      darkChozo says:

      Try “rockpapershotgun.com##div.simplePullQuote”.

      • Kefren says:

        Perfect, many thanks to you, sir. I shall record this information in my oaken Chest Of Holding for future generations.

    • Premium User Badge

      jrodman says:

      A reminder that I’m ready to re-subscribe when the pull quotes are gone.

  48. Premium User Badge

    DrScuttles says:

    There’s a lot of (understandable) negativity in these here comments. But I’d like to add to the chorus complimenting Nathan’s interview. Good show, old bean.

  49. Bimble says:

    He really is bonkers with delusion isn’t he. Just to pick up a couple of points – “for example, that all followers in the world should work harder. In everybody’s world, the god of gods declares that they should work as hard as they possibly can. Another decision may be that all followers in the worlds should work less hard, but be happier.”
    Is he confusing human players with NPCs? and work?! Wait a minute. He said that part of the experiment was to see if people paid for block removal and presumably the kickstarter was a ‘test’ How can we be sure that this ‘work’ isn’t powering some huge bitcoin mining device generating funds for the cult of Molyneux? I mean the reveal video has a real heavy church vibe!

    • Premium User Badge

      jrodman says:

      Fortunately bitcoin mining without special ASICs isn’t really going to generate any real money.
      It’s probably more profitable to make godus users into spambots.

      Hmm…..

    • SanguineAngel says:

      Are you genuinely confused by that? The “followers” in the game are the sims or npcs. So Bryan may influence the behaviour of the game in a variety of ways, including potentially the behaviour of the npcs.

  50. drvoke says:

    This is a great interview so far, Nathan. Looking forward to the rest. I don’t have as strong feelings towards Molyneux as some, since I didn’t have a PC that could play B&W when it was new, and Populous never interested me, and I was totally unaware of the hype surrounding Fable (I played it and thought it was a bit hamstrung, but mildly entertaining). I did quite enjoy PowerMonger, though. The whole Curiosity thing sounds like a load of old rubbish to me, though. There is no way he knew exactly what was inside the cube when Curiosity started, regardless of what he says. All of logic and reason dictates that this is the case. So he comes off as a bit of a liar, but OK. And the God of Gods thing sounds like an OK idea, but if he isn’t motivated by money, he has no incentive to make the game enjoyable for anybody, so the developers could easily veto any of his ideas or decisions outside of the plainly prescribed parameters of the sliders and buttons they give him for making decisions on a whim.